Editorial: No reason to fight city ordinances stopping discrimination against gays

Apr. 1, 2013

It's ludicrous that in 2013, the idea of prohibiting discrimination on nearly any basis would be controversial.

Yet, that's the case.

Advocates of marriage equality argued last week before the U.S. Supreme Court that gay and lesbian couples should no longer be excluded from legal parity, and closer to hom, a newly enacted human rights ordinance in Royal Oak may be derailed.

Earlier this year, the Royal Oak City Commission approved a human rights ordinance barring discrimination against residents on a number of fronts: race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, weight, condition of pregnancy, marital status, physical or mental limitation, source of income, family responsibilities, sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status.

It's a broad list of inclusion, and is modeled after the City of Ann Arbor's human rights ordinance.

But the ordinance hasn't taken effect. This month, resident Fred Birchard turned in a petition bearing 199 signatures, sufficient to suspend the ordinance pending the outcome of a broader signature-gathering effort. Birchard is expected to turn in a second set of petitions by Wednesday. With 746 signatures -- based on the turnout for a recent city election -- the city commission would be forced to drop the ordinance or vote to place it on the ballot this fall.

Birchard told Free Press staff writer Bill Laitner that the ordinance grants "special rights" to gays and lesbians. Jim Rasor, one of two city commissioners who introduced the ordinance, said it simply protects groups of people not covered by state and federal law.

Proponents of the ordinance say that its detractors are painting wild and inflammatory scenarios -- Forced unisex public restrooms! Malevolent transvestites prowling locker rooms! -- to coerce residents to sign the anti-ordinance petition. Rasor organized a rally for ordinance supporters aimed at debunking what he says is misleading hype.

(Page 2 of 2)

At least a dozen Michigan cities, including Huntington Woods, Ferndale, East Lansing, Grand Rapids, Detroit and Kalamazoo, have such ordinances. The sky has not fallen in those cities, and by all accounts, public restrooms are still marked for gender-specific use.

Should Birchard's petition drive be successful, it would behoove the Royal Oak City Commission to place the ordinance on the ballot. Extending legal protections to those who have none is a worthwhile goal. Residents deserve fair and unbiased information, and the chance to cast a ballot.

Royal Oak isn't alone in its struggle. Similar efforts have hit roadblocks in two other Michigan cities. In 2011, a human rights ordinance was defeated in Holland by a 5-4 vote. Resident Donald Martin, of Holland Is Ready, says that since 2011, his group has worked to increase awareness about the importance of equality and inclusion. He said he's hopeful that a future council will approve a human rights ordinance.

Residents of Rochester Hills have also worked to bring a human rights ordinance before that city's council. Last summer, the panel declined to place such an ordinance on its agenda. (Rochester Hills, it's worth noting, is in the district of Rep. Tom McMillin, who introduced an unsuccessful amendment to state law that would have banned the adoption of such ordinances by local units of governments.)

Proponents of human rights should be commended for continuing to work to keep these issues front and center in their communities.